I would like to point out that the car H&H will be selling is NOT K3015, I own K3015. The car that is for sale is the Ex J.H.T. Smith single seat race car that was built by Smith in 1937 on a spare un-numbered K3 chassis. The single seat race car was rebuilt as a conventional two seater K3 a few years ago. I should point out that H&H are not selling it as K3015.

To answer your original question re value and the estimate they put on it. I am probably going to get shot down in flames for saying this but it is just my opinion. At the end of the day the value of a car is determined by what someone is willing to pay on the day, not what I think.

First let me start by saying that I personally believe K3's are undervalued in the market. Why this is so I do not know.

However the value shown on the H&H website probably shows where the market has been, not taking into account recent global financial crisis. By this I mean the value for the real K3015 (sorry Peter).

This car is a bit of a anomaly. If Peter is right (and I have no reason to not believe that he is), the car has providence back to 1937 when it is possible that a spare K3 chassis was sold by the factory. It is clear that under this scenario the car is NOT one of the complete K3's built by the factory and hence all other things being equal should be valued less than one that was. One thing that remains unclear is when did the chassis adopt the number K3015-2 and was K3015 clearly in the public domain when it did. If the chassis left the factory with no chassis number then it should be reported as a no chassis number chassis.

In any event this is clearly a matter that the Register should be involved in, including a discussion with the auctioneer as to how the car should be best represented.

I do not have an opinion on any of those cars, but a statement that K3015-2 is not build up by the factory while K3015 is does not make any sence to me.

As far as my information goes in the late 30's K3015 was taken apart, with most parts being transplanted on what is now K3015-2, leaving K3015 as a dammaged chassis only. So it is obvious K3015 has been rebuild at a (mutch) later date by someone using parts that were never on this chasis. How can you call this one build-up by the works ??

Shouldn't H&H be at least describing this car as 1937 manufacture and not 1934 as currently on their website? The twists and turns of MMM provenance is complicated enough without listing blatently misleading dates when it is obvious that so many people know the true history of this car. Anyway, what's the problem with this car? Surely it's genuine history is interesting in it's own right, why can't H&H sell it on it's true merits?Terry

Since 1937, K3015-2 (as it is now called) existed as a complete fully working racing car with provenance and as we all is a Brooklands record holder (for all time). At the time this car was built (by J.H.T.Smith), the original damaged chassis, K3015, should have been destroyed. In my humble opinion, the true identity of K3015-2 is in fact K3015. There never were two K3's existing for this chassis number 'til now. The fact that a proper genuine pre war racing car with much history and provenance with Brooklands records has been destroyed for financial gain is a disgrace and in my opinion anyone associated with doing this should be truly ashamed of themselves - true enthusiasts they are not. Also, the fact that a K3 has now been totally replicated on its original chassis does not mean that history can be ignored. K3015-2 is a continuance of the ORIGINAL K3015 and therefore should be recognised as such. Shame that financial gain has to get in the way. It would be interesting to see what the courts made of this - similar to "old number one" Bentley methinks.

It's never that simple, the "original" 75 year old racing car is something I for one would like to see. Bits get added & bits get discarded. Sometimes it's an insignificant nut & bolt, sometimes its a gearbox, engine or yes even the chassis. These bits are then re-used by somebody further down the food chain until, one day (because of modern man's obsession with "collectables") the value actually starts to go up. There are unoriginal cars with complete time-lines, original cars with incomplete time-lines & everything else in-between. All such things will have an effect on the value, car or clock. A car converted in period to a single seater may be judged less desirable in the market today than a 2 seater because the ss version is not eligable for some of todays "blue riband" events. Personaly, I'm less interested in the value, than what I'm actually looking at. Is a J2 restored from a bare chassis still considered to be a J2 - of course it is. Are there MMMs out there rebuilt from nothing more than a reclaimed log-book from a car that was scrapped when it was just err scrap - probably. However good research will usually clarify the picture.

If you believe BBC documentaries - a modern "historic" racing history actually adds more value these days that a period history, make of that what you will.

The Triple-M Register has been faced with a number of cases where two cars have claimed the same chassis number (VIN in DVLA terms). In the majority of these cases we are able to confirm the identity of one of the claimants whilst identifying the other as, in reality, having a different chassis number (i.e. the genuine original chassis serial number stamp on the right front dumb-iron bracket is different from the one assumed by the owner). In such cases the second car is re-registered here under its real chassis number if known or in some cases where no original chassis stamp is apparent, the car is registered as chassis number ˘????÷ preceded by the model letter (J, L, PA etc.). .

However, in one or two cases it can be shown by reference to a coherent document and components trail, that the MG factory issued/sold a spare chassis. In some cases this chassis was then used to build a second car whilst the original chassis was either scrapped if damaged or sold on. In such cases, provided that evidence is convincing that a proportion of major components from the original factory built car were transferred to the new un-numbered chassis and provided that a coherent document trail for this second car exists, it was the decision of the Triple-M Register Committee that a rule should be operated by the Register as laid out in section 3.1.3 of the Register Rules & Guidelines (these are published in the Foreword to the Triple-M Register listing 2009, available from the Register Librarian).

The case of K 3015 and K 3015/2 is one such example. The matter was considered by the Triple-M Committee at its meeting on 16/12/01 and the decision taken that the identity of both the original and second chassis associated with this chassis number could clearly be differentiated and that the car then belonging to Mr. S. Beer would be registered as K 3015 as it was built on the original chassis whilst that then belonging to Mr. P. Gregory would be registered as K 3015/2 as it was built on an un-numbered chassis supplied by the factory in 1937.

You are quite correct in saying ˘Since 1937, K3015-2 (as it is now called) existed as a complete fully working racing car with provenance and as we all know is a Brooklands record holder (for all time)÷.

You are however not correct in saying ˘At the time this car was built (by J.H.T.Smith), the original damaged chassis, K3015, should have been destroyed.÷ When Smith built the new single seat race car in 1937 the original chassis was not damaged in any way and there was no reason, at all, for it to be destroyed. Smith being a second hand car dealer was only too happy to sell it on with other parts from K3015.

I agree with you, and others, it is a shame that a very historic pre war racing car (the Smith single seat car) has been dismantled and built into TWO cars, a copy of the single seat race car and a copy of a Mille Miglia car.

This is an interesting discussion, similar to one that I had with Dick Knudson over 10 years ago and before the MMM committee ruled on these two cars. Values will be commercially found.

The debate that Dick and I had is recalled here.

Dick viewed that K3015 was still the same car with the new chassis added as this continued the car in its competition program therefore it has continuous history. He was aware the chassis was damaged and was using this as his base for argument. He stated ˘in an ideal world the damaged chassis should have been destroyed and documented as such÷.

My argument was: as the original chassis has survived, the original history accumulated by chassis K3015 is important now there are 2 cars. The subsequent history using a new chassis is attributed to the second car now known as K3015-2. The original history before dismantling is attributed to the original chassis so itĂs K3015Ăs history.

My opinion then and still now is this: if the original chassis, discarded, damaged etc, still exists then that is the foundation component that is used to build a K3, so any completed vehicle using this original chassis should be known as K3015. The other vehicle with the subsequent history is still equally famous and important and the decision to call it K3015-2 is correct.

Essentially a new car was made when the old chassis was not destroyed. If it had been destroyed then the new car was a rebuilt car that could claim continuous history as K3015.

If someone finds an engine and builds a car around this then in my view itĂs a wonderful place to put an historic engine, but it should not then claim the identity of the former car that the engine came from.

Paul Skilleter of Jaguar magazine holds the opposite view and has written a scenario about a D Type Jaguar that was re bodied using fibreglass, new engine a V8, new suspension etc. The discarded body, engine, suspension etc were given to a neighbour who expressed interest in the damaged and worn parts, who then subsequently rebuilt them all back into a completed car. Skilleter claimed that the new parts were the continuation of the old car and assumed the identity of the original D type. The neighbour had only a replica D type.

I challenged this view but he never replied. As the neighbour has the original founding component and has repaired it, the body in this case, in my view he has the original car.

Since your posting and in particular your comment that Dick Knudson ˘was aware the chassis was damaged÷ I have been in touch with J. Hall, who has probably done more research on K3Ăs than any other person, to ask if he had come across any evidence that the original chassis was changed because it was damaged or that the original chassis had been damaged prior to the new chassis being used, his answer was NO to both questions. He was also surprised to hear that Dick Knudson ˘was aware the chassis was damaged÷ because he has got a copy of Dick KnudsonĂs extensive notes on K3Ăs and there is no mention in them of the original chassis having been damaged.

I have a copy, in J.H.T. SmithĂs handwriting, of the article he and Dennis Jenkinson wrote about K3015 and the single seat race car (K3015-2) and there is no mention in the article about the original chassis having been damaged, I would have thought he would have mentioned the fact if it was the case.

Len Goff (the present owner of K3015-2), has written a book titled ŠMagnette-isedĂ which collates the history of K3015 and K3015-2 and despite having researched the history of both cars very thoroughly there is no mention of the original chassis having been damaged.

The reason for pursuing the matter of whether the original chassis was damaged or not is because, as so often happens these days, when something is put in writing, like ˘the chassis was damaged÷, it gets taken as fact whether it is true or not. All I am trying to do is to get to get the facts recorded accurately.

If anyone has any period (pre war) information that the original chassis was either involved in an accident or that it was damaged in any way J. Hall and I would like to see the evidence so that the facts can be recorded for posterity.

My reference to Dick Knudson or Richard L. Knudson to be correct was as I said from memory over 10 years ago, in fact it was precisely April - May 1995 when Dick published an article in his Sacred Octagon magazine headed ----Fakes, Frauds, and Replicas... and, yes, Reproductions, too---

Below I include the section where he describes K3015.

˘K3015 is a car with a continuous history, therefore, it must be considered Genuine. A discarded chassis from this car exists, and England's MMM Register insists on calling that hunk of scrap metal K3015 as well. lsn't it time someone took a stand?

What makes a car? Does a chassis do it? Does a skeleton make a man? I refer you to the Bible, 1 Corinthians 2: 14 "For the body does not consist of one member but of many." Consider the -wry of K3015.

In October of 1934 John Smith bought K30l5 directly from the factory. In the next few seasons he actively campaigned it at Brooklands and other venues. In 1937 he decided to make it into a single seater. Jack and George Grey who did the ERA , bodies made what I consider to be the prettiest single seater body ever made for an M.G. With this new body, Smith went completely through the car mechanically. Now the chassis had been bent, flexed, twisted, and drilled, so he rang up the works in Abingdon and asked them if they had a spare chassis. They did, and Smith got it. As most of us M.G. enthusiasts are, he was reluctant to throwaway the old chassis, so he put it out back with bunch of other used parts. Some years later a chap came along and bought some parts from Smith including the old, discarded chassis. In the meantime Smith continued to use and race his car for more than 40 years! He died and the car in its 1937 form is still raced by an old friend of Smith's. Now comes the incredible part. There are those historians who claim that the Smith single seater is not a K3 and that the chassis that was scrapped is the real car. What rubbish! The sad part of this saga is that one day someone will build a fake around that junk chassis and pass it off as the real thing when in reality it is just trash. I just hope that when that car is built using that castoff chassis, it is represented for what it really is and that nothing is done to muddy the character and history of the genuine K3015. K3015 is a Genuine K3 (see below). Sadly, this is where the "old boy" network could come into play. If the "right" person gets that chassis and builds a Reconstruction K3 on it, then it could easily become accepted as the genuine. And guess what? A discarded chassis from K3026 has now surfaced. If the genuine versions of K3015 and K3026 are not regarded as the only recognizable versions of these two cars by the MMM Register, then they soon will have more K3s on their roster then were ever made at Abingdon.

Denis Jenkinson is probably a name known to many of you. Jenkinson is a long time writer for the British publication, Motor Sport. He gained fame as Stirling Moss's navigator in the Mille Miglia when they won in a Mercedes 300 SLR. He is extremely active in the vintage car hobby in England and is the author of The Directory of Historic Racing Cars (Aston Publications, 1987). It is a credit to Jenkinson and to his book that it formed the basis for an opinion handed down in a court case in England involving an historic Bentley. The judge regularly quoted the book and its definitions; from its use in this case, the book should form a basis for classifying cars. The glossary from the book is extremely well thought out and does not represent any special interest. Jenkinson, so far as I know, like Knudson, has no axe to grind. I know that I do not have an historic M.G. nor do I have any hope of ever owning one. I'd just like to see the record set straight and kept that way.÷

I entered dialogue with Dick after publication of the above article (especially the K3015 reference) that in full covers 6 pages.

He held very strong views but I must say from my recollection of the correspondence that took place between us, he did consider my views.

Peter, Dicks reference to The chassis ˘being bent, flexed, twisted, and drilled÷ after 14 years my memory recalled that passage to my description ˘Damaged÷ So I apologise for that reference. I know it can mean the same but as you correctly warn history must be accurately recorded.

The above is published information so I guess you must next make contact with Dick to establish where he obtained his research information for the article.

When John Smith owned Parade Motors in Mitchum I used to call in there from time to time. I lived in nearby Wimbledon at the time. On one occasion his two mechanics out the back were working on the car and I was able to help them out with some parts they needed from my spares.

I had a long chat with John and we talked about the history of the car. He said that the chassis was changed because the old one was "bent and cracked" and he had thought it better to use the new one from the factory.

In my eyes his action in changing the chassis were justified and such a change did not stop that car from being K3015. Its history continued and in my view that is the most important thing. It did not stop being K3015 because the chassis was changed any more than it would have done if the engine or back axle had been changed. With hindsight he should of course have destroyed the original chassis but I guess these things were not very importanat in those far off days.

Despite the changes to K3015 in recent years and the removal of the Smith body which I think is a great pity I would still consider it ( the Smith car ) to be the original car.

If a car gets dismantled and the parts dispersed to the extent that it no longer exists as a motor car that is another matter. The continuity of history stops at that point and it is in my mind debateable whether a car that is rebuilt around a possible part of an original chassis or some other part of an original car should ever be allowed to claim that it is the original car even if there is evidence that the part came from the original car. I think there are too many historic cars like this on the Register and history has already been "muddied" for future generations.

Having said all that I have to say Peter that your re-creation of the K3 is absolutely superb and great credit to you.

I knew JHT Smith well in the late 60's early 70's. He was a very entertaining man in the pub although he was somewhat embarrassing. He was very loud and unbelievably foul mouthed using the "C word" rather too much regardless of whether there were any ladies present. He never took any prisoners. You always had to keep your wits about you when dealing with him or he would eat you alive. He tried very hard to get me to swap my MGA Twin Cam for an N type special that he had and couldn't shift. It was the car that Donald Lake had for a while and then I think Richard Last had it. The reg was CG****. We never did the deal because we both wanted a cash adjustment! However the negotiations were great fun. Heated and hysterical at the same time.

As Terry says the single seater K3 was always in the workshop out at the back of Parade Motors and was often discussed. His description of the original chassis that he discarded was colourful to say the least and could not be repeated here. Needless to say he regarded it as scrap.

There was and is only one K3015. This is not about history, but as ever is simply about money. JHT would have loved this situation. He was always at the front of the queue to fleece anyone stupid enough to part with their money. So if whoever is selling the old chassis as the real car can persuade someone to part with a large amount of cash they can rest easy knowing that they would have had JHT's full support. I suppose that gives the old chassis a kind of continuous history if perhaps a rather dubious one.

Martin, I agree with your sentiments entirely. But of course it is not the car with the original chassis that is coming up for sale at auction. Money is still the motivator though, which is why the single seater body was removed and replaced with a replica Mille Miglia one.

A question for Peter Green: Is the registration number JB3180 the original one for K3015?